thinking of upgrading apache - GoFuckYourself.com

elron · 08-22-2006, 07:19 PM

ever since i manage servers i used apache 1.3 . but at my newest server i've decided to learn and install apache 2.0 and it looks like it can take more traffic then the 1.3 at the same server hardware . loads averages are much shorter for higher processes handled real time .

anyone experienced the same ?

HorseShit · 08-22-2006, 07:24 PM

I honestly don't see the point to it unless you need it for a specific reason

elron · 08-22-2006, 07:37 PM

well i said the reason , it looks like it can handle more traffic then the 1.3

Can anyone confirm that ?

fris · 08-22-2006, 07:50 PM

not sure always been a fan of 1.x but i just upgraded to php5

elron · 08-22-2006, 08:22 PM

i also use php5 , that didn't effect perfomance .

SplitInfinity · 08-22-2006, 08:51 PM

Apache 2.0 is MUCH better. :-)

Take it from 11+ years of experience with Apache. :-)

Tempest · 08-22-2006, 09:01 PM

I haven't quite figured out my problems yet but it seems like apache 2 does some things differently... i.e. On my 1.3 servers I have cgi-bin stuff set up to not be hotlinked.. But it doesn't work on the 2.0 server.. It appears that on 1.3, any additional requests for page items are done with the referer being the page itself as opposed to the surfer.. In 2.0 it seems that the referer it the surfer.. So in 2.0, the hotlinking prevents my scripts from running.. a pain for traffic trading scripts.

k0nr4d · 08-22-2006, 11:29 PM

I think apache 1.3 is waaay better. More third party module support and its been around for much longer

elron · 08-23-2006, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SplitInfinity

Apache 2.0 is MUCH better. :-)

Take it from 11+ years of experience with Apache. :-)

better by what ?

ne0 · 08-23-2006, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elron

better by what ?

In a simple way: it's faster, and can handle way much more traffic with less cpu usage.
You can read the list of improvements/bugfixes at: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/new_features_2_0.html

In my personal opinion, it's damn better

elron · 08-23-2006, 08:37 AM

too bad i'll have to work my ass off for all the bugs it will do to my htaccess files and script

HunkyLuke · 08-23-2006, 08:39 AM

apache 2 is better, but the real difference is in the kernel version you are using.

cheers,
Luke

QTbucks_Mark · 08-23-2006, 09:59 AM

When configured correctly, Apache 2.0 kicks 1.3's ass.

Especially under high load, switching from traditional prefork to the new worker-model makes a huge difference. If it's just for static content, I would say you can throw as much traffic at it as you want - you'll probably run out of bandwidth before your server breaks a sweat.

In fact, when my galleries get listed at thehun or other high-traffic sites, I can hardly see any increase of load on my servers. Other than bandwidth used that is...

Marshal · 08-23-2006, 11:35 AM

Apache 2.0 kicks-ass!

08-22-2006, 07:19 PM	#1
elron Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 1,553	thinking of upgrading apache ever since i manage servers i used apache 1.3 . but at my newest server i've decided to learn and install apache 2.0 and it looks like it can take more traffic then the 1.3 at the same server hardware . loads averages are much shorter for higher processes handled real time . anyone experienced the same ?

08-22-2006, 07:50 PM	#4
fris Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 55,372	not sure always been a fan of 1.x but i just upgraded to php5 __________________ Since 1999: 69 Adult Industry awards for Best Hosting Company and professional excellence. WP Stuff

08-23-2006, 09:59 AM	#13
QTbucks_Mark Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Europe Posts: 254	When configured correctly, Apache 2.0 kicks 1.3's ass. Especially under high load, switching from traditional prefork to the new worker-model makes a huge difference. If it's just for static content, I would say you can throw as much traffic at it as you want - you'll probably run out of bandwidth before your server breaks a sweat. In fact, when my galleries get listed at thehun or other high-traffic sites, I can hardly see any increase of load on my servers. Other than bandwidth used that is... __________________ QTbucks : featuring cherrywinters.com - sweetcarry.com - cutecaroline.com [email protected] :: ICQ 26505638

08-23-2006, 11:35 AM	#14
Marshal Biz Dev and SEO Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 15,181	Apache 2.0 kicks-ass! __________________ --- Busy ranking websites on Google...

08-22-2006, 07:24 PM	#2
HorseShit Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 17,513	I honestly don't see the point to it unless you need it for a specific reason

08-22-2006, 07:37 PM	#3
elron Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 1,553	well i said the reason , it looks like it can handle more traffic then the 1.3 Can anyone confirm that ?

08-22-2006, 08:22 PM	#5
elron Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 1,553	i also use php5 , that didn't effect perfomance .

08-22-2006, 08:51 PM	#6
SplitInfinity Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 3,047	Apache 2.0 is MUCH better. :-) Take it from 11+ years of experience with Apache. :-)

08-22-2006, 09:01 PM	#7
Tempest Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Location: West Coast, Canada. Posts: 10,217	I haven't quite figured out my problems yet but it seems like apache 2 does some things differently... i.e. On my 1.3 servers I have cgi-bin stuff set up to not be hotlinked.. But it doesn't work on the 2.0 server.. It appears that on 1.3, any additional requests for page items are done with the referer being the page itself as opposed to the surfer.. In 2.0 it seems that the referer it the surfer.. So in 2.0, the hotlinking prevents my scripts from running.. a pain for traffic trading scripts.

08-22-2006, 11:29 PM	#8
k0nr4d Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 9,229	I think apache 1.3 is waaay better. More third party module support and its been around for much longer

08-23-2006, 08:37 AM	#11
elron Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 1,553	too bad i'll have to work my ass off for all the bugs it will do to my htaccess files and script

08-23-2006, 08:39 AM	#12
HunkyLuke Virgin by request ;) Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,924	apache 2 is better, but the real difference is in the kernel version you are using. cheers, Luke